Contents

I don't think that the rank of Lt. Cmdr. is too senior for a nurse. Nurse Houlihan from M*A*S*H for example was a major and the current head of the Navy Nurse Corps is a rear admiral. -- James Cody 18:02, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I believe the comment should be removed or reworded, as we dont realy know what her job is. --AmdrBoltz 18:18, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Because since he piloted the shuttle (and Ambassador Troi) to the Enterprise, it seems he would be assigned to the Starbase they recieved the shuttle from. (The number would have been mentioned in the episode, I don't remember it at the moment) But either way, he wasn't an Enterprise personnel. - AJHalliwell 21:59, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The page page says that a a lieutenant played by Megan Butler was in DS9's "Emissary" when O'Brien went to say good bye to Picard. I don't remember that, so I assume it was cut. Can someone who knows for sure make mention of it in the article? - <unsigned>

We have a problem on this page, The episode and film templates are broken, beginning in the science division section. Is there someone who can fix that? I've expanded the page and will go on with that. – Tom 07:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a known issue on pages that use "too many" template calls. A temporary fix would be for Wikia to increase the page size limit yet again. The permanent fix would be to avoid having a page that needs more than 2MB(!) memory during processing... ;) -- Cid Highwind 08:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this page must be splitted. My proposal: Into divisions, so we have five pages instead of one, command division, operations division, science division, dual branches, and civilians. Ideas? Comments? Help is appreciated. Btw, we also should consider the same with the [[Unnamed Deep Space 9 Starfleet personnel]] and [[Unnamed USS Voyager personnel]]. – Tom 09:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the Mediawiki version used by Wikia at the moment, the fix described here might be another temporary measure - that is, remove the interlanguage links from noinclude-sections of the templates "EpLink" and "SER".

In the long run, splitting the page would really be the only way out. When looking at the page, I wonder if the presentation (not necessarily the content itself, mind you) is really that useful the way it is right now. Who is supposed to be looking at this page, and for what purpose? If we can identify that, it might be easier to choose the best way to split the content. For example, would this huge list be the page a reader would turn to to get an answer to the question "Who is the redshirt in episode X?", or "What episode shows 'Crewmember in cargo bay 4'?", or "How many unnamed Operations Divisions people did we encounter?" -- Cid Highwind 10:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For a complete encyclopedia we definitly should have pages like this one. It doesn't matter how many people we encountered, they are all part of the universe and beside this are all played by various and (mostly) unknown performers. Maybe I am alone with this aim, but I'll try to find (all) performers who ever played a part in a Star Trek series or movie and they are also definitly part of this encyclopedia. Of course, the background people don't have major scenes like the main characters and are often at the same place or doing the same but as I said, it is part of the encyclopedia. – Tom 10:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not trying to advocate the outright removal of this information from the encyclopedia. It has a place on some page - the question is, what page would that be? Currently, this list contains 113 "unnamed people", sorted by their division. If you're looking for a guy from a specific episode - no luck. If you're looking for a guy from a specific in-universe year - no luck. If you know that the guy was a member of the Parrises Squares team seen once - you might find the appropriate section right now, but not as easily once the page has been split (because you'd need to search on up to five pages).

Basically, what I'm asking is: Is the current section arrangement really the best one to base a page split on, or might there be something completely else...? -- Cid Highwind 10:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about a split, ordered by seasons or years but there are many who appeared in different seasons across the years. – Tom 10:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just brainstorming here, maybe one or another of these ideas turns out to be useful:

Give everyone currently on this list his/her own article.

As above, but restricted to those with more than just one appearance.

Don't make it completely separate articles, but subpages of this list article.

Move one-time appearances to the appropriate episode page.

If episode links are the main problem, keep at least an image on this page, with a link to the appropriate section/page/subpage. These images could then be arranged in a gallery.

Alternatively, create a sortable table with columns for year of appearance, division, image, link to further information...

Good ideas. maybe: Give everyone who has more than one appearance an own article, with an image and link to this "subpage" here on the main list. That should definitely help to reduce the episode links because we have many background performers who are in more than twenty episodes and would also make it easy to do the same for more in the future. – Tom 11:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Subpages could work. I don't like options #1, 2, or 4 at all (no offense, Cid :)). I don't think I like #5 either, but #6 might be doable. I would also go for splitting it up into divisions (ops, command, science, dual, and civilian) or Tom's idea of giving only those with more than one appearance a subpage (like [[Unnamed USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) personnel/Bridge Crewman (2364-2366)|this]]), linking the subpage on this page (as I've done). Alternatively, we could just split the article up by years (i.e. one page for 2364-2367 and another for 2368-2371). Personally, though, I like the subpages for multiple appearances the best, followed by a split into divisions. --From Andoria with Love 14:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I like your idea Shran. But we should leave an image of the character on the main page, so everyone who'll have a look on this page knows where the subpage goes. – Tom 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this discussion is now moot. Any objections to moving the Bridge crewman that has his own page back into the main article? It doesn't look like the additions of his templates would cause the templates to break. --- WillieLLAP 13:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I did some work on the templates, moving documentation to subpages. The links now all display properly on the page, but the tooltips still break about a third of the way down the page (they display ??? instead of the text from the title files). -- Renegade54 15:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So would a split of the article still be needed? --- WillieLLAP 12:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a split ist still necessary. As Renegade54 said, the episode links appear. The tooltips are still odd, but if anyone would know more about these episodes or films he/she can follow the link. IMO. – Tom 12:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(See Potts family) Where would they go? Under civilians or unknown division? --LauraCC (talk) 20:22, February 29, 2016 (UTC)

Unknown. Everything we add except they are parents of the two boys, are normally aboard the Enterprise-D, and left the two behind for sabbatical reasons would be speculation. We also don't know if both are Starfleet officers or just one. Tom (talk) 15:57, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

You mean "Unknown division"? They may simply be long-term passengers, which don't have a division per se. --LauraCC (talk) 17:31, March 1, 2016 (UTC)